Becoming a Good Citizen? The Long-Term Consequences … Shanahan... · social and economic...

Becoming a Good Citizen? The Long-Term Consequences of Poverty and Family Instability During Childhood

Daniel T. Lichter

Russell Sage Foundationand

Department of SociologyThe Ohio State University

Columbus, OH 43210

Michael J. Shanahan

Department of Human Development and Family StudiesPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802

Erica L. Gardner

Department of SociologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802

December 1999

Direct all correspondence to Daniel T. Lichter, Russell Sage Foundation, 112 East 64th Street,New York, NY 10021 or to [email protected]. An earlier version of this paper was presented at theannual meetings of the Population Association of America, New York City, March, 1999. Thisresearch was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Russell SageFoundation, and by a Population Research Center Core Grant (P30 HD28263-01) from the NationalInstitute of Child Health and Human Development to the Population Research Institute, PennsylvaniaState University. The paper also benefitted from the helpful computing assistance of Jeanne Spicer.


Abstract

Our main objective is to evaluate whether a disadvantaged childhood inevitably leads to a

politically disaffected and socially disengaged late adolescence. We examine the relationship between

social and economic disadvantages during early childhood and “good citizenship” during late

adolescence. Measures of formal volunteer activities are now available from the 1996 young adult

supplements of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY); these data are linked to mother

and family records from the 1979-96 main NLSY sample to create life-history records spanning

childhood and adolescence. Children -- especially males -- from single parent families are less likely

than children growing up in married couple households to be involved in volunteer work. Volunteer

behavior is more strongly related to time spent in poverty among females than males. More generally,

our results provide support for a mediational model, one in which long-term negative effects of

childhood social and economic disadvantages on later pro-social behavior occur indirectly through

effects on socioemotional development and life experiences during adolescence (e.g., attendance at

religious services and school success). These results address current concerns about putative declines

in a civil society in America and about the elevation of individualism over communalism among today’s

young people.

1We are not concerned about “citizenship” in a legal sense, as indicated by the exercise ofvarious rights and obligations (e.g., voting, paying taxes, etc.) that attend to being a legal U.S. citizen. We are more interested in defining good citizenship in terms of a willingness to act out of concern for allof humanity.

1


Introduction

This paper examines the relationship between social and economic disadvantages during early

childhood and later civic behavior --- good citizenship --- in adolescence and early adulthood.1

Previous demographic research typically has focused on “risky” behaviors among disadvantaged

teenagers (Wu and Martinson 1993; Haveman et al. 1995; Klebanov et al. 1994). Indeed, a

voluminous literature exists on the deleterious effects of family poverty and family instability on a variety

of social and demographic outcomes, including teen childbearing, school drop-out, unprotected sexual

activity, drug and alcohol use, and delinquency (Mayer 1997; McLanahan and Sandefur 1995).

Whether disadvantaged children become socially responsible, productive, and civic-minded young

adults has not been a major part of the scholarly dialogue. Specifically, do social and economic

disadvantages in the early life course adversely affect the practice of various pro-social behaviors, such

as civic and electoral participation, the development of healthy friendship networks, good work habits,

and socially responsible or communal values in early adulthood?

We consider this question in terms of a key indicator of civic or pro-social behavior --

volunteerism. First, we evaluate the extent to which children of the 1980s have grown up to be socially

responsible citizens, as measured by various kinds of volunteer work, including involvement in youth

2

mentor programs and faith-based religious organizations. Second, we document the extent to which

socially and economically disadvantaged children, as young adults, engage in the civic and

organizational life of their communities. Third, we assess the social and behavioral mechanisms through

which family instability through childhood affects pro-social volunteer work in late adolescence and

early adulthood. These are important issues in light of past and current high rates of child poverty,

continuing high rates of nonmarital fertility and divorce, and increasing segregation of poor families in

“bad” neighborhoods (Lichter 1997; Bianchi 1999).

For the most part, data limitations have prevented empirical studies of the longer-term

consequences of child poverty and family instability. Such an endeavor requires appropriate

behavioral and attitudinal information in late adolescence that can be linked to data that describe the

child’s life-history (e.g., longitudinal accounts of household income and family structure). With the

newly released 1996 young adult supplements of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY),

such a dataset now exists. These young adult records are matched with previously collected mother

and family information from the 1979-96 main NLSY sample (Center for Human Resources Research

1997).

Family Structure, Poverty, and Civic Behavior

The study of today’s late adolescents and young adults -- their successful incorporation into the

labor market, their family experiences and attitudes, and their interpersonal relationships -- is arguably

more critical than ever before. The 1990s ushered in the first generation of young adults to bear the

imprint of major upheavals in America’s fundamental institutions -- the family, economy, and

3

government. An unprecedented number of youth grew up during the 1970s and 1980s with single

moms, absent fathers, and increasingly complicated and often transitory living arrangements (e.g.,

informal unions and step-families). For many, poverty was a way of life and reliance on welfare an

economic necessity (Lichter 1997; Bianchi 1999). A rapidly restructuring and increasingly bifurcated

economy meant that the parents of today’s young adults often faced job insecurity, low or declining

wages, and downward social mobility (Morris and Western 1999; Gottschalk and Moffitt 1994). The

federal government’s response during this period was to cut back the welfare safety net, block

increases in the minimum wage, and step away from affirmative action and other equal opportunity

initiatives.

Not surprisingly, public policy often centers on whether young people now come less prepared

than previous generations to assume productive adult roles and to become good citizens. The

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989) has argued for instilling adolescents with an ethic

of “responsible citizenship, caring and ethics through service to others.” Social commentators often

decry the “loss of a civil society,” “the rise in incivility,” “death of outrage,” and a growing “opposition

culture,” all of which imply a loss of community, inter-personal trust, and empathy for others (e.g.,

Putman 1995; Wuthnow 1991; Bellah et al. 1995). Indeed, some observers fear that these cultural

shifts pose a threat to America’s basic democratic institutions (Elshtain 1999). To what extent this

threat is a result of the unprecedented instability in the early family experiences of today’s young adults

is unclear. What is clear is that today’s young people grew up during a decidedly different family and

economic regime than previous generations of young adults.

Has this unprecedented instability in the early family experiences of today’s young adults

4

undermined civic engagement and promoted apathy among young people? Volunteerism indicates

civic commitment and an enlarged sense of social responsibility for the well-being of less fortunate

others (Flanagan and Galley 1995; Flanagan et al. 1998). To be sure, volunteer activity is highly

selective of privileged groups, but recent evidence indicates that volunteering may also have a positive

transformative effect on adolescents; e.g., volunteers are less likely to engage in criminal or delinquent

activities (Uggen and Halko 1999). An emerging ethos stressing social responsibility and community

involvement contrasts with the stereotypic view of young adults as highly individualistic (rather than

communal), self-involved (rather than empathic of others), and concerned only with material goals

(rather than social goals).

Our conceptual framework emphasizes the fundamental role of the changing American family

(Janoski and Wilson 1995; Sundeen 1990; Elshtain 1999). The conventional wisdom is that family

instability and poverty “scar” children for life; in the words of Corcoran (1995), socially and

economically disadvantaged children typically go “from rags to rags.” According to this perspective,

growing up in a female-headed family or experiencing family instability during childhood adversely

affects later civic commitment and engenders estrangement from broader societal or communal goals.

Previous research suggests several possible mechanisms for such a relationship. Most studies have

emphasized the lack of material resources (e.g., nutritional food), insufficient child investments (e.g.,

learning rich environments), or ineffective parenting (e.g., low maternal education, lack of supervision or

feelings of affection) in single-parent families

(Klebanov et al. 1994; Menaghan et al. 1997, Korenman et al. 1995). Any sub-optimal or even

dysfunctional distal family experiences, in turn, may adversely affect proximate determinants of political

5

or civic participation, including educational attainment, full-time employment, and positive psychosocial

adjustment (e.g., self efficacy, lack of depressive symptoms).

The implication is that today’s young people who grew up in disadvantaged families should be

less well adjusted and successful than young adults who grew up relatively advantaged (McLeod and

Shanahan 1993; Hill and Sandfort 1995). They also should be less likely than late adolescents from

two-parent families to engage in volunteer work or other pro-social activities.

Results from past studies, including the influential Growing Up With a Single Mother (McLanahan and

Sandefur 1995) are consistent with the view (1) that single parenthood irreparably harms children, and

(2) that poverty “explains” much of the association between family change and childhood or adult

outcomes (e.g., teen pregnancy and marriage). Amato and Booth’s (1997) Generation at Risk show

that parental financial stress, measured in terms of parental income, welfare use, and change over the

child’s life course, has long-term negative effects on adult children’s socioeconomic attainment

(including schooling) and marital quality. Duncan et al. (1997) similarly find that childhood poverty

affects socioeconomic attainments (especially schooling), as have other studies focusing on school

dropout, high school completion, and earnings (Astone and McLanahan 1991; Axinn et al. 1997;

Powell and Parcel 1997).

Moreover, Furstenburg and Hughes’ (1995) recent study corroborates these results with a sample of

“at risk” adults born to mostly African-American teen mothers. Past research thus suggests a

straightforward mediational model: Poverty and family instability affect adolescent outcomes, such as

healthy emotional development and educational attainment, which are known to affect volunteer activity

and pro-social behavior in early adulthood.

6

Unfortunately, the intuitive appeal of this conventional wisdom has sometimes contributed to its

uncritical acceptance (see Rein and Winship 1999). A careful reading of the literature indicates

surprisingly little consensus on the size of family instability and poverty effects on different adolescent

outcomes, how large they are relative to other effects (e.g., parenting or residential movement), whether

any short-term developmental consequences persist into adulthood, or whether effects are different

across groups (defined by the child’s age, race, gender, or residence). Moreover, few if any studies

are sensitive to the possibility that a disadvantaged family background may have long lasting effects that

are best revealed in the absence of pro-social adult behaviors, rather than in the presence of anti-social

and dysfunctional behaviors usually considered. We also know virtually nothing about links between

earlier childhood experiences and later pro-social or civic behaviors. Indeed, the mechanisms (e.g.,

low income, parenting styles, child investments) through which childhood disadvantages affect pro-

social behavior may be decidedly different from those that produce negative outcomes, such as teen

childbearing and delinquency.

In fact, newly published studies now question various aspects of the conventional wisdom that

family instability and low family income, per se, irreparably damage children (Mayer 1997; Edin and

Lein 1997; Duncan and Brooks-Dunn 1997). The recent publication of Mayer’s What Money Can’t

Buy (1997) is especially propitious — and controversial -- in light of recent concerns about the short-

and long-term effects of welfare reform and poverty on children’s lives. Mayer’s (1997) systematic

statistical analyses of several different nationally-representative data sets show that low family income

during childhood is only modestly associated with a variety of negative outcomes in late adolescence

(e.g., behavioral problems) and early adulthood (e.g., teen pregnancy, male unemployment). The

7

estimated effects of family income are often confounded in previous studies because important

unobserved variables (e.g., parental intelligence, emotional health) cannot be “controlled.” Unlike most

studies, Mayer’s research accounts for potential omitted-variable bias by using an instrumental variable

approach (i.e., controlling a post-outcome measure of income). Her approach results in estimated

effects of family income that are substantially lower than those reported in most previous studies.

The substantive and policy implications of Mayer’s (1997) analysis are compelling: Any long-

term effects of growing up in poor and unstable families must be caused by observed and unobserved

circumstances other than low income. The inability to “control” poverty’s correlates means that

previous studies have overestimated the effects of child poverty. Mayer (1997) reports that parent’s

income is only mildly associated with parental investment strategies (e.g., the things that parents

purchase), suggesting that “investment theories” fail to adequately account for any deleterious

consequences of single-parenthood for children. The argument that low income “causes” family stress

and poor parenting (e.g., lack of supervision, or quality of the relationship) also seems inconsistent with

the data. This conclusion differs from other recent studies, some of which suggest that the quality of the

home environment may account for as much as one-quarter to one-third of the income effect on

emotional and cognitive development (Smith et al. 1997). But it is not clear how strongly healthy

development is related to an individual’s ability to become long-term productive and well-adjusted

adults.

Our paper builds on past research in several important ways. First, unlike most previous work,

it focuses on the long-term consequences of family background. Second, we balance the current

8

preoccupation with psychosocial and behavioral problems (e.g., Mayer 1997) with a new focus on

pro-social behaviors (i.e., volunteer work). Third, unlike most previous research on volunteer work,

civic identity, and pro-social behavior, which has centered almost exclusively on the effects of

proximate causes (e.g., current education or occupational status), we also focus on distal causes (e.g.,

childhood social and economic background). Finally, this research is timely in light of new research

suggesting that family poverty (Mayer 1997) and parenting (Harris 1998) matter less than previously

thought, especially with regard to negative behavioral outcomes (e.g., school dropout). Whether this

conclusion also is true for positive outcomes, such as volunteer activity, in late adolescence and early

adulthood is ambigious.

Data and Methods

The Young Adults of the NLSY Mothers. In 1996, a young adult supplement was

administered to the young adult children of the mothers in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a

panel survey first initiated in 1979. Of the 1781 young adults surveyed in 1996 we examined a sample

of 1106 adolescents who ranged in age from 14 to 18 (mean=15.60) and were still in high school

(Center for Human Resources Research 1997). We selected this group so that the experiences of

those we examined would be relatively homogenous. These “at risk” young people were born during

the late 1970s to mothers who were disproportionately young (i.e., 14-21 in 1979), unmarried, and

poor (Center for Human Resource Research 1997). Twenty-six percent of our sample were born to

teen mothers and none were born to mothers over age 25.

The sample is comprised of roughly equal percentages of whites (40%) and blacks (41%), with

9

a smaller group of Hispanic youth (19%). We have linked these late adolescent records to their

mother’s records from earlier waves that include economic and household characteristics, collected on

an annual basis until 1994 and biannually thereafter. Our sample thus provides an unprecedented

opportunity to link the experiences of parental and filial generations, as well as to link early adult values

and behaviors to childhood social and economic disadvantages. This sample also represents the first

generation of “at risk” young people that grew up with the social and economic upheavals of last two

decades (Kowalski-Jones and Mott 1998). No study to our knowledge has evaluated links between

childhood experiences and civic-minded and socially-responsible behaviors.

Measurement. The Young Adult sample includes a global measure of formal volunteer work

and volunteer work in specific organizational domains. Our global measure is based on responses to

the following single item: “For all types of volunteer work you have done, was any of it strictly

voluntary?” This variable was coded 1 if the young adult engaged in any voluntary volunteer work, and

0 otherwise (e.g., court-ordered volunteer work or any volunteer work that is required through an

individual’s school, church, or other organization is coded 0 ).

Yes/no (coded 1 or 0) responses to eight specific domains of volunteer work also were elicited

from the following question: “Which of the following types of organizations are/were you involved with

in your volunteer or community service work? (1) youth organization, such as Little League or helping

with the scouts; (2) service organizations, such as Big Brother or Big Sister; (3) political clubs or

organizations; (4) church or church-related groups (not including worship services); (5) community

centers, neighborhood improvement, or social-action associations or groups; (6) organized volunteer

group in a hospital or nursing home; (7) educational organizations; (8) conservation, recycling, or

10

environmental group such as the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy. Participation by late

adolescents in some volunteer activities (such as political organizations) is relatively rare. We therefore

focus on two specific types of activities that typify the volunteer experiences of our sample population:

religious volunteer activity and volunteer behavior involving the mentoring of youth. Religious

volunteering consists of volunteer activities sponsored by church or synagogue or religious groups (not

including worship services). Youth mentoring, as we have defined it, consists of volunteer activities on

behalf of youth organizations, such as Little League or helping with the scouts, service organizations,

such as Big Brother or Big Sister, and educational organizations. If the respondent participated in any

of those activities her/his answer is coded 1 and 0 otherwise.

Our conceptual model suggests that disruptive life course patterns through childhood may have

negative effects on volunteerism indirectly through poor functioning at mid-adolescence. Drawing on

multiple waves of data, we constructed a set of measures that describe early life course experiences.

The proportion of time spent in poverty is assessed by the years living below the poverty line divided by

the number of years. By assessing poverty status throughout childhood, we can more accurately gauge

the possible long-term effects of family disadvantage (McLanahan and Sandefur 1995; Lichter 1997).

Family instability is measured by the proportion of time spent in a female-headed household, which

reflects the number of years in which the mother lacked a spouse or partner divided by adolescent’s

age (data for 1995 is missing so coded same as 1996). We also consider whether the child was born

to an adolescent mother; early parenthood is an indirect measure of parental skills and maturity, as well

as a proxy for unintended pregnancy and later parental investments (Axinn et al. 1998; Joyce,

Kaestner, and Korenman 1999). The mother’s ability to impart positive pro-social behaviors and

11

values may be compromised by her own experiences of family instability and its associated risk factors,

including poverty (Thornton 1991). Family disruption during childhood is measured by the number of

times that the child’s mother experienced a marital and family change (e.g., divorce, remarriage,

cohabitation).

Any long-term negative family effects presumably reflects the lack of parental resources or

social capital (Wilson and Musick 1997). Rosenthal et al. (1998) refer to the role of parental

conditioning as the “organismic” model of volunteering; i.e., children raised in environments that

reinforce helping behaviors are themselves more likely to become helping adults. For example,

residentially transient children and their parents are arguably only weakly attached to their communities

and, by implication, are unlikely to have high levels of civic and political commitment to community or

neighborhood civic or social goals. For our purposes, we evaluate the effects of residential mobility by

the number of moves outside the county during childhood.

Maternal education also is likely to have direct and indirect positive long term effects on adult

children. For example, education is positively associated with political activity and pro-social activities;

highly educated mothers may provide positive role models for their children that persist into adulthood.

Highly educated parents are also more likely to “teach” their children about positive social values and

behaviors, i.e., highly educated parents may have higher levels of civic skills and knowledge, which they

pass along to their children. In general, volunteers occupy dominant statuses in society (Smith 1994;

Wilson and Musick 1997), with education being positively correlated with many forms of social

engagement (Oliver, 1984; Snow and Oliver, 1995). The mother’s educational attainment is assessed

here by mother’s highest grade completed as of the 1996 interview.

12

Finally, the cumulation of various stressful or deleterious experiences may negatively influence

pro-social behavior, as coping mechanisms and social supports are exhausted. In order to test this

hypothesis, we created a cumulative life course risk index, which summarizes negative life course

experiences through childhood. This index was constructed from five measures of family background:

childhood poverty, female headship, geographic mobility, maternal education, and teen mother. A

score value of zero was given if, as children, they experienced no poverty, if they lived in a married-

couple family, if they experienced no inter-county migration, if their mother had at least 15 years of

education, and if they were not born of a teen parent. Conversely, those who have experienced any of

the events received a value of one or two, depending on the severity of the event. A code of 1 is given

to those who experienced a teen birth, those whose mothers have between 10 and 14 years of

education, or some experience with moves, spouse/partner changes, poverty, or female headship but

less experience than 1 ½ standard deviations above the mean score. Those with mother’s with less

than 10 years of education, or with more than 1 ½ standard deviations above the mean receive a value

of 2.

We expect that these distal social and economic disadvantages work against the inculcation of

pro-social values and behaviors, and that these long-term effects are mediated by proximal healthy or

unhealthy functioning at mid-adolescence. Rosenthal et al. (1997) refer to this as the “contextual”

model of volunteering; i.e., current circumstances rather than past experiences matter most in the lives

of young adults. For example, previous research shows that religiosity is strongly associated with

formal and informal helping behaviors (Wilson and Janoski 1995). Present religious involvement is

measured here by religious attendance, composed of six ordinal categories ranging from (1) do not

13

attend religious services to (6) attend services more than once a week.

Involvements in school and work may also compete for time otherwise available for volunteer

activities. Students with higher grades may spend more time engaged in homework, but grades may

also signify a pro-school orientation that includes high levels of involvement in extra-curricular activities

(Mahoney and Cairns, 1997). A measure of grade point average (where A’s=4, B’s=3,C’s=2,

D/F’s=1) is therefore included in the analysis. There is also limited evidence that extensive work

involvements can interfere with involvement in other activities (Greenberger and Steinberg, 1986). We

therefore include a dichotomous measure indicating whether the youth is employed for 20 hours or

more per week. The belief that they are capable of “making things happen” (i.e., personal self-efficacy)

may also manifest itself in volunteer activity (especially activity that has a social goal). Here we use

Pearlin’s Mastery Scale, which is constructed from 7 measures and coded so that a high score reflects

a greater degree of self-efficacy.

Adolescence is a time when future orientations with respect to work, family, and school are

formulated and these plans bear on one’s self-conceptions and behaviors (Erikson 1959). We

therefore include three measures of future orientations. Educational plans reflect the highest grade that

respondents realistically think that they will complete. Youth with high educational aspirations may

engage in more volunteer activities, consistent with the observed positive relationship between

volunteerism and education among adults. The youth were also asked, “What do you think is the best

age, if any, to get married?” A similar question was asked for best age for the birth of a first child.

Young person who expect to get married and have children earlier in the transition to adulthood will

also be less likely to engage in volunteerism, since earlier ages for these transition markers are

14

associated with lower levels of educational and occupational attainment. An accelerated family life

cycle may compete with organizational involvement in early adulthood.

Finally, the analyses include two additional control variables: age of the young person, and

dummy variables indicating whether the youth is black or Hispanic (with the reference category being

white or other). All analyses were carried out with SAS, STATA, and Mixor. Data are adjusted for

over-sampling and attrition using the sampling weight provided by NLSY 1996 and deflated by the

mean of the sampling weight to maintain observed sample size.

Findings

Our goal is to evaluate whether socially disadvantaged children become socially disengaged as

they make the transition to young adulthood. We first consider the frequency with which youth engage

in volunteer activities, as well as their early life course experiences and experiences at mid-adolescence.

Our conceptual model argues that family experiences through childhood affect emotional and behavioral

functioning at mid-adolescence, which in turn influence levels of volunteer activity. Thus, we examine

whether early family experiences predict volunteerism and, if so, whether indicators of functioning in

adolescence mediate these relationships.

Volunteer Activities and the Early Life Course

Panel A of Table 1 reports mean levels of volunteer activities at mid-adolescence. Almost one-

third of both males and females (31% for both groups) report that they engaged in some volunteer

activity in the past two years. About one-fourth of the sample report that they engaged in volunteer

activities that were purely voluntary (i.e., not mandated by school, faith-based organizations, or the

2 It is possible that an individual is involved in more than one volunteer activity and that thosetwo activities are sponsored/required by two different organizations.

15

court). This means that roughly one-third of all volunteer activity among these young people is not

completely voluntary.

(Table 1 about here)

The most common organizational venues for volunteer activity are faith-based institutions and

organizations that serve the needs of children and young people. Almost one-fifth of our sample

adolescents report that they volunteer in the context of their church or a church-related group (15%

males and 19% females) or participate in such organizations as Big Brother or Big Sister, Little League,

or scouting (18% for both groups). Less frequently observed are volunteer activities associated with

civic organizations, such as community centers or nursing homes (8% males and 15% females) and

even less common is volunteerism for political organizations (3% for both groups). This last

observation is consistent with the commonplace view that young people are skeptical of political

institutions and of the efficacy of political participation. Volunteerism can be required or sponsored by

schools (8% males and 13% females) or churches (12% males and 13% females). Among youth who

volunteer, 26% of male volunteers and 42% of female volunteers report that at least some of their

volunteer behavior is sponsored/required by their school. Thirty-eight percent of these males and 41%

of these females also indicate that at least some of their volunteer behavior is sponsored/required by

their church or synagogue. Nearly 9% of male and 7% of female volunteers report that at least some of

their volunteer behavior is sponsored/required by other organizations.2

Organizational sponsorship is particularly important for specific types of volunteer behavior.

16

Fifty-seven percent of females who are engaged in youth mentoring report that at least some of their

volunteer activity is sponsored or required by their school compared to 28% of the males. More than

30% of males and 40% females who are engaged in youth mentoring report that at least some of their

activity is sponsored or required through their church. The majority of those who volunteer within their

faith-based organization (74% males and 67% females) also report that at least some of their volunteer

activity is sponsored through their church. It thus seems that the lack of church participation or the

lack of volunteer programs within a school limit an individual’s access to volunteer activity.

Indicators of disadvantage through childhood are common among these youth (see Panel B of

Table 1). The average percentage of time spent in poverty is 24 for males and 27 for females, and a

slightly larger proportion of time is spent in a female-headed household (27% for males and 28% for

females). The NLSY “young adults” also experienced notable instability in their living arrangements

during childhood. The mean number of changes in household composition is 1.56 for males and 1.61

for females, while the mean number of moves outside the county is 1.67 for males and 1.40 for females.

These young people grew up in households marked by change, both in organizational involvement and

residence. The mothers report surprisingly high levels of education, on average just short of a high

school diploma. This may slightly overstate their education during the child’s earlier years, however,

since it refers to attainment in 1996.

Panel C shows indicators of adjustment at mid-adolescence. Average grade point average is

slightly below a C. Female and male religious attendance averages once a month. Females and males

have a mid-range score on Pearlin’s Mastery Scale (range 7-28). Given the prevalence of poverty and

family instability observed in this sample, educational plans are relatively high, with males and females

17

expecting to complete about two years of college on average. Moreover, male youth expect to delay

marriage and parenthood until the about age 24 or 25, suggesting that they envision completing school

and being gainfully employed before starting a family.

Life Course Models of Volunteerism

The zero-order correlations in Table 2 indicate the strength of bivariate relationships among

types of volunteerism, early life course experiences, and functioning at mid-adolescence. The

relationships among any type of voluntary volunteerism, church volunteerism and mentoring are

indicated by phi coefficients. These relationships are substantial in magnitude and highly significant,

indicating that participating in one form of volunteerism is often accompanied by other forms of

volunteerism.


Of the life course variables, the proportions of childhood spent in poverty and in a female-

headed household are consistently and negatively correlated with volunteer activity. As more time is

spent in poverty and in a female-headed household, youth are less likely to have engaged in any

voluntary volunteerism or voluntary activities associated with the church or with youth groups. These

results are consistent with the view that today’s young people, by virtual of their early childhood

experiences, are less likely to engage in pro-social activities.

The results raise obvious questions about whether healthy functioning at mid-adolescence

mediates the effects of early life course experiences on later volunteerism. Indeed, the results in Table

2 show that religious attendance and school plans are both significantly related to proportion of time in

poverty and a female-headed household, and these same variables are significantly related to

3 Some of the youth in this sample are siblings, which creates interdependencies among casesfrom the same family. This problem can be addressed with a mixed model which estimates clustereffects as random effects. That is, volunteerism can be predicted by the early life course andadolescence variables, but also by cluster-level parameters, while concurrently adjusting for intraclasscorrelation in the data (see Hedeker and Gibbons, undated). All of the multivariate models reportedwere also estimated as mixed models, allowing for a random intercept and error term at the cluster-level. Adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing, very few of the random effects were significant,consistent with Kish’s (1965) observation that small clusters have negligible effects. We thereforepresent fixed effects models only.

18

volunteerism. Results in Table 2 likewise show that self-efficacy is positively related to both

volunteerism and these indicators of the early life course, although the magnitude of these relationships is

small. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that the proportion of time spent in poverty and a

female-headed household and the mother’s education are related to later volunteerism, in part because

a disadvantaged family background is associated with religious attitudes, self-efficacy, and future adult

plans.

We first examine the interrelationships between the early life course variables and volunteerism

with a series of multivariate logistic regression models. A second model then includes variables

indicative of functioning in mid-adolescence.3 A mediating relationship is indicated to the extent that

significant effects of early life course variables in the first model are reduced by the inclusion of

adolescent experiences in the second model. The results are reported for males and females

separately. We identify coefficients that differ significantly in magnitude between these two groups

when appropriate; we tested for these differences by estimating models for the total sample and

including interaction terms one at a time.

Table 3 reports estimates for models predicting “strictly voluntary” volunteerism for males and

19

females (i.e., we eliminate volunteer activities that are court-ordered). As shown in Model 1, for

males, time spent in a female-headed household is associated with lower levels of volunteerism, a

relationship of considerable magnitude (odd ratio=.31, p<.05). For females, time spent in poverty as

a child decreases the likelihood of volunteerism, an effect that is likewise large from a substantive

standpoint (odds ratio=.20, p<.05). Among females, maternal educational attainment increases

volunteer activity (odds ratio=1.16, p<.10), an effect that is small from a statistical and substantive

standpoint. Black males are less likely than white males to volunteer (odds ratio=.48, p<.05). The

magnitude of the black effect differs between males and females, albeit marginally (t=-1.88, p=.06),

suggesting that black males volunteer less than black females.


Are early disadvantages directly related to volunteerism or are they mediated by the later

experiences of mid-adolescence? To investigate this issue, a second model is estimated that includes

variables indicative of adolescent experiences. For both males and females, the effects of the early life

course experience variables are mediated by adolescent experiences. For the males, religious

attendance increases the likelihood of volunteerism (odds ratio=1.34, p<.01). This effect is also

observed for females (odds ratio=1.26, p=.05). Among females, grade point average (odds ratio=.56,

p<.01) also has a substantial negative effects on volunteerism. Students doing well in school and

working 20 hours per week or more per week are much less likely to engage in any volunteer activities.

Best age for marriage also has a negative effect on volunteerism, although its effect is comparatively

small in magnitude (odds ratio=.85, p<.05): students who think older ages are more suitable for

marriage are less likely to engage in volunteer activities. Finally, females who expect to attain higher

4Locus of control was unrelated to volunteer work in our models. Moreover, in somepreliminary work, we had also hypothesized that high self esteem would be positively associated withvolunteer behavior, while depression would be negatively related to volunteering. Using the RosenbergSelf-Esteem Scale and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- Depression Scale (CESD), however, wefound little or no evidence to support this hypothesis.

20

levels of education are more likely to volunteer (odds ratio=1.40, p<.001). This finding complements

the consistent finding that better educated adults are more socially involved. Perhaps some of the effect

of education plans reflects a pro-social orientation that more educated young people and those who

desire higher levels of educational attainment share in common.4

Childhood poverty and female headship clearly diminish later volunteerism. It also may be the

case that the multiple disadvantages of youth have a cumulative impact that grows exponentially. In

fact, many of the early life course disadvantages are interrelated (see Table 2). Childhood poverty is

positively and very strongly correlated with the proportion of time spent in a female-headed household

(r=.62), being born to a teen mother (r=.20), and maternal education(r=-.27). Similarly, the proportion

of time spent in a female-headed household is highly correlated with being born to a teen mother

(r=.22) and the number of changes in household structure (r=.15). Early life course disadvantages

rarely occur in isolation.

To consider whether the effects of multiple early disadvantages affect volunteerism, we re-

estimated the models in Table 3, substituting the cumulative life course risk index for the individual risk

factors. These additional results, reported in Table 4, show that, among females, the cumulative risk

factor index significantly decreases the likelihood of volunteerism: as young females experience more

risk factors with greater severity, they are less likely to engage in any form of volunteerism (odds

21

ratio=.82, p<.05; the odds ratio for males=.88, p=.11). In addition, the same factors in adolescence

that mediate the effect of proportion of time in poverty also mediate the effect of the cumulative risk

index. Grade point average (odds ratio=.57, p<.01) and best age for marriage (odds ratio=.86, p<.05)

decrease the likelihood of volunteerism. Educational plans, however, increase the likelihood of

volunteerism (odds ratio=1.45, p<.001), as does religious attendance (odds ratio=1.28, p<.05).

Among females, early life course disadvantages work in a cumulative fashion to reduce volunteerism at

mid-adolescence. Model 1 also shows a significant black effect among males but not among among

females, a difference that is statistically significant (t=-2.06, p=.04).


Do high levels of early risk have long-term negative effects on volunteerism? High levels of

risk--encompassing persistent poverty, a large number of changes in household composition, and a

poorly educated mother--may lead to a very low likelihood of volunteerism. Youth from such

households may exhaust their social supports and coping resources, while creating a sense of learned

helplessness in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges (Shanahan and Mortimer, 1996) and

leading to low levels of volunteerism. The equations shown in Table 4 were re-estimated with both the

risk index variable and the square of the risk index variable to determine whether the effect of early risk

on volunteerism is curvilinear. The results indicate that the effect of early risk is not curvilinear for either

males or females. That is, early disadvantages do not interact to create very low probabilities of

volunteerism.

Life Course Experiences and Domains of Volunteer Activity

Our results support a mediational model that links early life course disadvantages to

22

volunteerism. It may also be the case that specific types of volunteerism reflect unique life experiences.

In Table 5, we therefore present results from models that predict religious-based volunteer activities

and youth mentoring, the two most common forms of voluntary activities observed in this sample.


Model 1 for faith-based volunteerism shows that early life course disadvantages have

substantial effects on this form of voluntary activity for males. The proportion of time spent in a female-

headed household (odds ratio=.09, p<.01) and having a teen mother (odds ratio=.08, p<.05) both

have very large, negative effects on faith-based volunteerism. The proportion of time spent in poverty

actually has a large and positive effect on volunteerism (odds ratio=5.74, p<.05). This appears to

reflect multicollinearity among the predictor variables – particularly proportion of time spent in a

female-headed household – since the zero-order correlation between poverty and church volunteerism

is significant and negative among males (r=-.12). Moreover, re-estimating Model 1 without the

proportion of time in a female-headed household reduces the effect of poverty to insignificance. Finally

for males, the mother’s educational attainment increases the likelihood of church volunteerism (odds

ratio=1.46, p<.001).

This same effect is observed for females: as the mother’s educational attainment increases,

females are more likely to volunteer in faith-based activities (odds ratio=1.20, p<.05). Time spent in

poverty has a marginally significant effect on faith-based volunteerism among females (odds ratio=.35,

p=.055). It is not surprising that religious attendance mediates the effects of these early life course

experiences for both males (odds ratio= 2.34, p<.001) and, to a lesser extent, for females (odds ratio=

1.83, p<.001). In short, the models provide some support for the mediational model, especially for

23

males, whose church-related volunteer activities are adversely affected by several early life course

disadvantages that exert most of their effects through religious attendance at mid-adolescence.

The same modeling strategy is used to examine the precursors of mentor-related volunteer

activities, whether youth have engaged in voluntary activities in the context of such organizations as

scouts, or a Big Brother or Big Sister organization (also shown in Table 5). The predictors examined

here explain little of the interindividual variability in youth mentoring. As educational plans increase

among females, so too does their likelihood of mentoring (odds ratio=1.32, p<.01). However, in

general, neither early life course disadvantage nor experiences at mid-adolescence predict the likelihood

of mentoring in our sample. Perhaps youth from disadvantaged homes may seek an “arena of comfort”

in such organizations (Simmons and Blyth, 1987), while youth with favorable early family experiences

participate to become socially involved.

Table 6 provides results from an analyses of the long-term effects of cumulative childhood

disadvantage. The results indicate that the cumulative risk index has no measurable effect on the

likelihood of mentoring among boys and a marginally significant negative effect among girls (odds

ratio=.84, p=.056). Finally, the models shown in Table 6 were re-estimated, adding the square of the

risk index to test for a curvilinear relationship. These analyses (not shown) provide little evidence that

the effect of cumulative risk on any these forms of volunteerism is curvilinear (i.e., multiplicative). In

this respect, our results are inconsistent with our working hypothesis. At the same time, we find that

disadvantaged youth are not socially disaffected or lack empathy for the less fortunate, if measured by

the extent to which they engaged in volunteer activities that benefit youth.


24

Discussion and Conclusion

A major objective of this study is to reorient policy debates away from the current

preoccupation with the short-term deleterious consequences of family instability and disadvantage on

young people’s developmental outcomes (e.g., externalizing behavior, pregnancy, school dropout, etc.).

Instead, we emphasize the potential long-term implications of early disadvantage on the transition to

productive and socially responsible “citizenship,” as indicated by early adult pro-social activities. This is

especially important during the current period, when a large cohort of potentially “at-risk” young

persons have begun to enter early adulthood and take their place as contributing (or not) members of

society. Specifically, our concern is whether the past two decades of high child poverty and family

instability have contributed to today’s putatively growing share of apathetic and politically disaffected

young persons. Our conceptual framework and empirical approach rests on the assumption that

volunteer work — or the lack of it — signals the responsiveness of young adults to broader social

issues and to the well-being of others less fortunate than themselves.

Our general conclusion, based on analyses of data from the newly available 1996 young adult

samples of the NLSY, is that the “exposure” to single parent families (especially among boys) and to

childhood poverty (especially for girls) are negatively associated with later pro-social behaviors. These

results support our basic working hypothesis. At the same time, our results should not be viewed

entirely from a pessimistic standpoint regarding America’s future citizens. We found little evidence, for

example, of significant deleterious long-term effects associated with being borne of a teen parent or

experiencing multiple family transitions during childhood. Children of teen parents and unstable

25

households were just a likely as other children to engage in volunteer activities as they matured into late

adolescence. These are optimistic results (for other views, see Rich 1999).

Our analyses have provided additional insights into the social mechanisms by which growing up

in a female-headed family exert negative effects on volunteerism. Specifically, it is clear that effects of

social and economic childhood disadvantages are mediated, at least in part, by healthy emotional and

cognitive development in mid-adolescence. Religious activity plays an especially significant role; a

disadvantaged childhood is negatively associated with faith-based involvement, which is a major venue

for community involvement and pro-social activities (Wilson and Janoski 1995). Our analyses raise

new and important questions about whether the young adult behaviors observed here have an

environmental “cause” (e.g., living in an unstable family), or whether the results simply reflect an inability

to control other unobserved variables, including neighborhood characteristics and heritable personality

traits from parents (e.g., shyness or empathy) that may be associated with volunteerism or other kinds

of pro-social activities (Harris 1998; Teachman 1997). More importantly, our results point to the

importance of schools and churches for providing a pathway for young adults to volunteer. They also

call for greater effort in identifying institutional mechanisms that facilitate civic involvement, especially if

volunteerism has a positive transformative effect on values and behavior (Uggen and Janikula 1999).

In sum, our study provides a benchmark rather than final answers regarding the nexus between

family change and the putative decline in a “civil society.” Indeed, we acknowledge several potential

limitations of our study. First, the small sample size of the NLSY young adult sample makes it

imprudent to make strong causal arguments — our results are suggestive rather than definitive. A

complete evaluation of alternative explanations for the results reported here may require panel data as

5One testable hypothesis is that the long term effects of family instability may be artifactual,reflecting the fact that many poor families have little choice but to live in bad neighborhoods thatsocialize children into oppositional cultures, much less instill positive civic values and behavior. Theadult NLSY supplement includes several subjective assessments of the current neighborhood context(e.g., crime, inability find jobs, abandoned buildings). Some additional analyses indicated thatsubjective neighborhood characteristics were largely unrelated to volunteer work among young adults.

26

the sample participants age into adulthood and alternative statistical designs (e.g. multilevel models of

school or neighborhood effects) before strong causal assertions are appropriate (see Manski et al.

1992). Second, our analyses are largely restricted to two kinds of pro-social activities, each of which

involves formal organizational participation (in faith-based institutions and schools). Our approach

nevertheless provides a conceptual framework for future studies linking disadvantaged family

background to values and attitudes (e.g., altruism) and many other kinds of informal pro-social or

helping behaviors (e.g., giving to charity or attending to the neighbor’s children). Indeed, young adults

with disadvantaged backgrounds may express their values differently (yet positively) from young adults

from stable middle-class families. For example, they may avoid participation in predominately white

fraternal organizations like the Shriners or Rotary Club. Third, our analyses have focused primarily on

the effects of “supply-side” characteristics (e.g., family background, employment, and schooling).

Whether young adults engage in pro-social activities may also be “demand driven;” i.e., volunteer work

may be greatest in neighborhoods or communities with the greatest need for help. On the other hand,

fear of crime often is a major barrier to community involvement; the supply of volunteers may thus

decline as the demand for volunteers and social activism increases. Neighborhoods and schools also

provide a context for socialization (e.g., “collective socialization”) and peer influence, which also are

potentially important for child and adult well-being.5

They are neither an incentive nor a barrier to community involvement, nor do they account for thenegative relationship between children’s living arrangements (with a single parent) and volunteerism asyoung adults.

27

Despite these limitations, our results on family change speak to concerns about the decline in

civility and civil society, represented by the possible erosion of our most basic democratic and civic

values, and expressed in persistent claims that society increasingly rewards individualism and personal

gratification over communalism (e.g., Elshstain 1999). As Tocqueville observed more than a century

ago, participation in voluntary and civic organizations has been life blood of America society and a

training grounds for good citizenship and leadership (Rich 1999). Whether the rapid family changes

sown in America over the past two decade have reaped a socially and politically disaffected citizenry

has great saliency to our collective future. Indeed, any deleterious effects on our basic institutions (e.g.,

participatory government) and “sense of community” (e.g., trust and caring for those less fortunate in

society) will be revealed in the full course of time.

28

References

Amato, Paul, and Alan Booth. 1997. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family

Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Astone, Nan, and Sara McLanahan. 1991. “Family Structure and High School Completion:

The Role of Parental Practices.” American Sociological Review 56:309-320.

Axinn, William G., Jennifer S. Barber, and Arland Thornton. 1998. “The Long-Term Impact

of Parents’ Childbearing Decisions on Children’s Self-Esteem.” Demography 35:435-443.

Axinn, William G., Duncan, Greg J., and Arland Thornton. 1997. “The Effect of Parents’

Income, Wealth and Attitudes on Children’s Completed Schooling and Self-Esteem.” In

Consequences of Growing Up Poor (pp. 518-540). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Baydar, N. 1995. “Reliability and Validity of Temperament Scales of the NLSY Child

Assessments.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 339-370.

Bellah, Robert Neelly, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, and Steven M. Tipton. 1996.

Habits of the Heart : Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Bianchi, Suzanne M. 1999. “Feminization and Juvenilization of Poverty: Trends, Relative

Risks, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Sociology 25:307-333.

Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela K. Klebanov, and N. Sealand. 1993. “Do

Neighborhoods Influence Child and Adolescent Development?” American Journal of Sociology

99:353-395.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 1989. Turning Points: Preparing American

29

Youth for the 21st Century. Report of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents, New

York.

Center for Human Resource Research. 1997. NLS handbook: The National Longitudinal

Surveys. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Cherlin, Andrew. 1992. Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American

Journal of Sociology 94:S94-S120.

Corcoran, M. 1995. “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States.” Annual

Review of Sociology 21:237-256.

Duncan, Greg J., and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 1997. “Income Effects Across the Life Span:

Integration and interpretation.” Pp. 596-610 in Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Duncan, Greg J., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Pamela K. Klebanov. 1994. “Economic

Deprivation and Early Child Development.” Child Development 65:296-318.

Duncan, Greg J., W. J. Yeung, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 1997. “How Much Does Childhood

Poverty Affect the Life Chances of Children?” American Sociological Review 63:406-423.

Eggebeen, David J., and Lichter, Daniel T. 1991. “Race, Family Structure, and Changing

Poverty Among American Children.” American Sociological Review 56:801-817.

Edin, Katherine, and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive

Welfare and Low Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

30

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1999. “A Call to Civil Society.” Society (July/August):11-19.

Erickson, E. H. 1959. Identity and the Life-Cycle. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Flanagan, Constance, and Leslie S. Gallay. 1995. “Reframing the Meaning of ‘Political’ in

Research with Adolescents.” Perspectives on Political Science 24:34-41.

Flanagan, Constance A., Jennifer M. Bowes, Britta Jonsson, Beno Csapo, Elena Sheblanova.

1998. “Ties that Bind: Correlates of Adolescents’ Civic Commitments in Seven Countries.” Journal of

Social Issues 54:457-475.

Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr., and Mary E. Hughes. 1995. “Social Capital and Successful

Development Among At-Risk Children. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:580-592.

Gottschalk, Peter, and Robert A. Moffitt. 1994. “The Growth of Earnings Instability in the

U.S. Labor Market. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2:217-272.

Greenberger, E., Steinberg, LD. 1986. When Teenagers Work: the Psychological and Social

Costs of Adolescent Employment. New York: Basic Books.

Harris, Judith Rich. 1998. The Nurture Assumption. New York: Free Press.

Harris, Kathy M. 1996. “Life after Welfare: Women, Work, and Repeat Dependency.”

American Sociological Review 61:407-426.

Haveman, Robert, Barbara Wolfe, and James Spaulding. 1995. “The Determinants of

Children’s Attainments: A Review of Methods and Findings.” Journal of Economic Literature 33:

1829-1878.

Hedecker, Donald and Robert D. Gibbons. undated. MIXOR: A Comnputer Program for

Mixed Effects Ordinal Regression Analysis. Mimeo, University of Illinois at Chicago.

31

Hill, Martha S., and J.R. Sandfort. 1995. “Effects of Childhood Poverty on Productivity Later

in Life: Implications for Public Policy.” Children and Youth Services Review 17:91-126.

Huston, Athena. C. 1991. Children in Poverty: Child Development and Public Policy. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Janoski, Thomas, and John Wilson. 1995. “Pathways to Volunteerism: Family Socialization

and Status Transmission Models.” Social Forces 74:271-292

Jencks, Christopher, and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. “The Social Consequences of Growing Up

in a Poor Neighborhood.” In Inner-City Poverty in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National

Academy Press.

Joyce, Theodore J, Robert Kaestner, and Sanders Korenman. 1999. “The Effect of

Pregnancy Intention on Child Development.” Demography 36:forthcoming.

Kish, Leslie. 1965. Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Klebanov, Pamela K., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Greg J. Duncan. 1994. “Does

Neighborhood and Family Affect Mothers’ Parenting, Mental Health, and Social Support?” Journal of

Marriage and the Family 56:441-455.

Korenman, Sanders., J.E. Miller, and J.E. Sjaastad. 1995. “Long-term Poverty and Child

Development in the United States: Results from the NLSY.” Children and Youth Services Review

17:127-155.

Kowaleski-Jones, Lori, and Frank L. Mott. 1998. “Sex, Contraception and Childbearing

Among High-Risk Youth: Do Different Factors Influence Males and Females?” Family Planning

Perspectives 30(July/August):163-169.

32

Lichter, Daniel T. 1997. “Poverty and Inequality among Children. Annual Review of

Sociology 23:121-145.

Laub, John H., and Sampson, Robert J. 1993. “Turning Points in the Life Course: Why

Change Matters to the Study of Crime.” Criminology 31:301-325.

Manski, Charles F., Sandefur, Gary D., McLanahan, Sara, and Powers, Daniel. 1992.

“Alternative Estimates of the Effect of Family Structure During Adolescence on High School

Graduation.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 87:25-37.

Mayer, Susan E. 1997. What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s Life Chances.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLanahan, Sara. S., and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLeod, Jane D., and Michael Shanahan. 1993. “Poverty, Parenting, and Children's Mental

Health. American Sociological Review 58:351-366.

Menaghan, Elizabeth G., Lori Kowaleski-Jones, and Mott, Frank .L. 1997. “The

Intergenerational Costs of Parental Social Stressors: Academic and Social Difficulties in Early

Adolescence for Children of Young Mothers.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 38:72-86.

Mahoney, J. L. and Cairns, R. B. 1997. “Do Extracurricular Activities Protect Against Early

School Dropout?” Developmental Psychology 33: 241-253.

Morris, Martina, and Bruce Western. 1999. “Earnings Inequity at the End of the 20th

Century.” Annual Review of Sociology 25:623-657.

Oliver, Pamela. 1984. “If You Don’t Do It, Nobody Else Will: Active and Token Contributors

33

to Local Collective Efforts.” American Sociological Review 49:601-610.

Powell, M. A., and Toby L. Parcel. 1997. “Effects of Family Structure on the Earnings

Attainment Process: Differences by Gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:419-433.

Putman, Robert. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of

Democracy 6:65-78.

Radloff, L. 1977. “The CES-D scale: A new self-report depression scale for research in the

general population.” Applied Psychological Measurement 1385-401.

Rein, Martin, and Christopher Winship. 1999. “The Dangers of ‘Strong” Causal Reasoning in

Social Policy.” Society (July/August):38-46.

Rich, Paul. 1999. “American Voluntarism, Social Capital, and Political Culture.” The Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 565:15-34.

Rosenthal, Saul, Candice Feiring, and Michael Lewis. 1998. “Political Volunteering from Late

Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Patterns and Predictors.” Journal of Social Issues 54:477-493.

Sandefur, Gary D., Sara McLanahan, Roger A. Wojtkiewicz. 1992. “The Effects of Parental

Marital Status During Adolescence on High School Graduation.” Social Forces 71:103-121.

Shanahan, M. J., and Mortimer, J. T. 1996. “Understanding the positive consequences of

psychosocial stress.” In B. Markovsky, M. Lovaglia, and R. Simon (Eds.), Advances in group

processes, Vol. 13, pp. 189-209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Simmons, Roberta G., and Dale A. Blyth. 1987. Moving Into Adolescence: The Impact of

Pubertal Change and School Context. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Smith, David Horton. 1994. “Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and

34

Volunteering: A Literature Review.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23:243-263.

Smith, W. Jeanne, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Pamela Klebanov. 1997. “Consequences of

Living in Poverty for Young Children’s Cognitive and Verbal Ability and Early School Achievement.”

Pp. 132-138 in Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Snow, David A., and Pamela E. Oliver. 1995. “Social Movements and Collective Behavior:

Social Psychological Dimensions and Considerations.” Pp. 571-599 in Sociological Perspectives on

Social Psychology, Ed. K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, J. S. House. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sundeen, Richard A. 1990. “Family Life Course Status and Volunteer Behavior: Implications

for the Single Parent.” Sociological Perspectives 33:483-500.

Thornton, Arland. 1991. “Influence of the Marital History of Parents on the Marital and

Cohabitational Experiences of Children.” American Journal of Sociology 96:868-894.

Teachman, Jay. 1997. “Gender of Siblings, Cognitive Achievement, and Academic

Performance: Familial and Nonfamilial Influences on Children.” Journal of Marriage and the Family

59:363-374.

Uggen, Christopher, and Jennifer Halko. 1999. “Volunteerism and Arrest in the Transition to

Adulthood.” Social Forces 78:331-362.

Wilson, John, and Thomas Janoski. 1995. “The Contribution of Religion to Volunteer Work.”

Sociology of Religion 57:137-152.

Wilson, John, and Marc A. Musick. 1999. “Attachment to Volunteering.” Sociological

Forum 14:243-272.

35

Wilson, John, and Marc Musick. 1997. “Who Cares? Toward an Integrated Theory of

Volunteer Work.” American Sociological Review 62:694-713.

Wu, Lawrence L., and Brian C. Martinson. 1993. “Family Structure and the Risk of a

Premarital Birth. American Sociological Review 53:210-232.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1991. Acts of Compassion. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press.

36

Table 1. Volunteer Activities and the Early Life Course, Young Adult Survey of the NLSY: Means and (Standard Errors)

A. Volunteer Activities1 Males Females T-test, df

Any volunteer experience .31 (.02) .31 (.03) .01, 1086

Voluntary volunteerism .24 (.02) .23 (.02) .13, 1086

Church volunteerism .15 (.02) .19 (.02) -1.35, 1086

Mentoring of youth .18 (.02) .18 (.02) -.16, 1086

Civic volunteerism .09 (.01) .15 (.02) -2.78, 1086**

Political volunteerism .03 (.01) .03 (.01) -.22, 1086

School requirement/sponsored .08 (.01) .13 (.02) -2.16, 1086*

Church requirement/sponsored .12 (.02) .13 (.02) -.48, 1086

B. Early Life Course Experiences

Proportion of time in poverty .24 (.01) .27 (.02) 1.69, 960#

Proportion of time female-headed household

.27 (.01) .28 (.02) -.59, 1086

Child born to teenage mother .10 (.01) .14 (.02) -2.03, 1086*

Household structure changes 1.56 (.09) 1.61 (.09) -.42, 1086

Moves outside the county 1.67 (.10) 1.40 (.10) 1.88, 1084#

Mother’s educational attainment 11.86 (.09) 11.93 (.11) -.48, 1081

C. Experiences at Mid-Adolescence

Grade Point Average 2.45(.04) 2.38 (.04) 1.16, 1086

Employed 20 Hours/Week + .21 (.02) .18 (.02) 1.12, 1086

Religiosity 2.98 (.09) 3.23 (.09) -1.99, 1086*

Self-Efficacy 19.03 (.15) 18.60 (.16) 1.99, 1083*

Educational Plans (Grade level) 14.33 (.11) 14.87 (.12) -3.26, 1079***

Best age for marriage 24.62 (.19) 23.75 (.18) 3.29, 893***

Best age for children 25.28 (.21) 24.58 (.21) 2.39, 852*

1 All volunteer items coded 0=no, 1=yes; # p<.10 * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

37

Table 2. Volunteer Activities and Life Course Experiences through Childhood and Adolescence, Bivariate Relationships (Pearson correlations reported; |r|s $.06 are significant at p#.05)

1.a 2.a 3.a 4. 5. 6.a 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.a 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

1. Voluntarya 1.0

2. Churcha .52 1.0

3. Mentoringa .58 .40 1.0

4. Poverty -.17 -.11 -.09 1.0

5. Female HH -.13 -.13 -.08 .62 1.0

6. Teen Mothera .05 .04 .02 .20 .22 1.0

7. HH Changes -.04 -.06 -.05 .07 .15 .09 1.0

8. Moves -.00 -.01 .02 -.07 -.08 -.02 .17 1.0

9. M’s Education .15 .16 .10 -.27 -.03 -.17 -.00 -.00 1.0

10. Grades -.06 -.01 -.03 -.06 -.06 .03 .04 .02 .01 1.0

11. Work 20+a .04 .02 .02 -.11 -.11 .04 .00 -.03 .06 -.14 1.0

12. Religiosity .21 .37 .10 -.09 -.06 -.01 -.02 -.11 .14 -.03 .03 1.0

13. Self-efficacy .11 .07 .10 -.09 -.05 -.08 -.09 .07 .04 -.03 .12 .02 1.0

14. School Plans .21 .06 .15 -.25 -.07 -.08 -.03 .02 .28 .00 .08 .12 .23 1.0

15. Age Marriage -.08 -.08 -.05 .04 .18 .02 -.01 -.06 .05 .00 -.05 .00 .08 .12 1.0

16. Age Children .03 -.05 -.03 -.19 -.17 .01 .04 -.04 .05 -.04 .02 .02 .04 .18 .52 1.0

a The association between two items marked by this superscript is reported as a phi coefficient.

38

Table 3. Volunteer Activity in Adolescence, Logistic Regression Estimates, Young Adult Children of the NLSY (unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)1

Males Females

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

A. Early Life Course Experiences

Time in poverty (proportion) .01 (.64) .16 (.81) -1.60 (.67)* -.82 (.81)

Time in female-headed household -1.16 (.59)* -.51 (.72) .15 (.65) .01 (.95)

Child born to teenage mother -.97 (.68) -.12 (.70) .37 (.45) -.01 (.61)

Household structure changes .06 (.08) .10 (.10) -.14 (.09) -.09 (.12)

Moves outside the county -.04 (.07) .05 (.09) -.02 (.08) .03 (.09)

Mother’s educational attainment .14 (.07)# -.04 (.08) .15 (.08)# .16 (.10)#

B. Experiences at Mid-Adolescence

Grade point average -.03 (.21) -.59 (.22)**

Employed 20 hours/week + .13 (.48) -.60 (.53)

Religious attitudes .33 (.11)** .23 (.11)*

Educational plans .17 (.09)# .33 (.10)***

Locus of control .05 (.06) .08 (.07)

Best age for marriage -.07 (.06) -.17 (.08)*

Best age for children .08 (.05)# -.03 (.07)

39

Table 3 continued.

C. Covariates

Age .06 (.13) -.04 (.18) .03 (.14) -.01 (.17)

Black -.72 (.33)* -1.09 (.41)** -.06 (.36) -.40 (.48)

Hispanic -.65 (.45) -.92 (.52)# .03 (.48) .13 (.56)

Constant -3.21 (2.20) -5.09 (3.57) -2.97 (2.33) -3.96 (3.64)

F-statistic, degrees of freedom N(unweighted)

2.38, 10, 479**489

1.50, 21,339#

3601.64, 10, 456#

4662.05, 21. 328**

349

1 Equations include dummy variables for missing status on Household structure changes and Moves outside the county, Best age for marriage, andBest age for children.

# p<.10 * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

40

Table 4. Volunteer Activity in Adolescence, Logistic Regression Estimates, Children of the NLSY (unstandardized coefficients and standard errors reported)1

Males Females

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Cumulative Life Course Risk Index -.13 (.08) .13 (.11) -.19 (.08)* -.07 (.11)

B. Functioning at Mid-Adolescence

Grade point average .02 (.21) -.57 (.22)**

Employed 20 hours/week + .16 (.47) -.45 (.54)

Religious attitudes .34 (.11)** .25 (.10)*

Educational plans .18 (.09)* .37 (.10)***

Self efficacy .06 (.06) .10 (.07)

Best age for marriage -.09 (.06) -.16 (.08)*

Best age for children .10 (.04)* -.02 (.05)

C. Covariates

Age .05 (.12) -.05 (.18) .04 (.13) -.03 (.18)

Black -1.14 (.31)*** -1.42 (.43)*** -.15 (.28) -.45 (.40)

Hispanic -.85 (.44)# -.94 (.51)# -.19 (.45) -.13 (.52)

Constant -1.15 (1.95) -6.13 (3.52)# -1.09 (2.14) -2.93 (3.62)


4.49, 5, 484***489

1.94, 16, 344*360

1.51, 5, 464469

2.59, 16, 336**352

1 Equations include dummy variables for missing status on Household structure changes and Moves outside the county, Best age for marriage, and Best age forchildren.# p<.10 * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

41

Table 5. Volunteer Activity in Adolescence, Logistic Regression Estimates, Children of the NLSY

Church-Related Voluntary Activities Mentoring of Youth

Male Female Male Female

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

A. Life Course Experiences

Time in poverty (proportion) 1.74 (.69)* 1.86 (.97)# -1.04 (.54)# -.66 (.75) .44 (.66) 1.38 (.96) -.70 (.65) -.03 (.70)

Time in female-headed household -2.41 (.77)** -1.73 (.94)# -.72 (.54) -.62 (.77) -.87 (.61) -.80 (.82) -.44 (.58) -1.21 (.66)#

Child born to teenage mother -2.51 (1.10)* -2.54 (1.35)# .58 (.46) .33 (.68) -.42 (.59) -.25 (.67) .15 (.47) -.35 (.56)

Household structural changes -.05 (.10) .10 (.12) -.14 (.09) -.15 (.13) -.02 (.09) -.00 (.10) -.09 (.09) -.09 (.11)

Moves outside the county -.03 (.09) .04 (.11) .02 (.09) .08 (.10) .06 (.08) .14 (.10) .02 (.09) .04 (.09)

Mother’s educational attainment .38 (.09)*** .28 (.13)* .18 (.08)* .28 (.09)** .12 (.08) -.01 (.09) .14 (.08) .17 (.10)


Grade point average .32 (.27) -.32 (.23) -.00 (.22) -.26 (.23)

Employed 20 hours/week + -.07 (.63) .10 (.56) .13 (.55) -.57 (.55)

Religious attitudes .85 (.16)*** .62 (.13)*** .00 (.11) .05 (.10)

Educational plans -.10 (.11) .07 (.11) .15 (.11) .28 (.10)**

Self efficacy .10 (.08) .05 (.06) .11 (.07) -.02 (.06)

Best age for marriage .05 (.07) -.12 (.07) -.06 (.06) -.01 (.07)

Best age for children -.05 (.06) -.04 (.07) .01 (.05) -.10 (.05)#

42

Table 5 continued

C. Background Characteristics

Age -.12 (.14) -.45 (.24)# -.31 (.14)* -.31 (.19) .12 (.13) .04 (.21) -.14 (.14) -.06 (.17)

Black -.56 (.39) -1.19 (.60)* .86 (.33)** .45 (.47) -.31 (.34) -.46 (.42) .48 (.32) .33 (.40)

Hispanic -.45 (.68) -.77 (.63) .62 (.48) .59 (.62) -.85 (.44)* -1.40 (.67) .36 (.44) .43 (.48)

Constant -4.08 (2.45) -2.41 (4.60) 1.33 (2.32) .38 (3.58) -4.64 (2.36)* -5.22 (4.08)* -.81 (2.41) -2.73 (3.52)


2.98, 10, 479**489

2.02, 21, 339**360

2.19, 10, 456*466

2.86, 21, 328***349

1.31, 10, 479489

.89, 20, 320340

1.30, 10, 456466

1.18, 21, 328349

1 Equations include dummy variables for missing status on Household structure changes and Moves outside the county, Best age for marriage, and Best age forchildren.

# p<.10 * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

43

Table 6. Volunteer Activity in Adolescence, Logistic Regression Estimates, Children of the NLSY

Church-Related Voluntary Activities Mentoring of Youth

Male Female Male Female

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Cumulative Life Course Risk Index -.24 (.10)* .02 (.15) -.22 (.09)* -.15 (.12) -.06 (.09) .08 (.12) -.18 (.09)# -.20 (.11)#


Grade point average .29 (.24) -.29 (.23) .04 (.20) -.25 (.23)

Employed 20 hours/week + .22 (.58) .23 (.54) .10 (.54) -.37 (.56)#

Religious attitudes .89 (.15)*** .59 (.12)*** .00 (.11) .07 (.10)

Educational plans -.02 (.11) .12 (.10) .14 (.10) .28 (.09)**

Self efficacy .09 (.09) .07 (.06) .12 (.06)# -.02 (.06)

Best age for marriage .00 (.06) -.10 (.07) -.08 (.06) -.03 (.07)

Best age for children -.02 (.06) -.03 (.06) .01 (.85) -.07 (.05)

C. Background Characteristics

Age -.10 (.14) -.39 (.21)# -.27 (.14)# -.31 (.18)# .16 (.13) .04 (.21) -.12 (.14) -.11 (.18)

Black -.79 (.36)* -1.34 (.58)* .59 (.30)* .31 (.45) -.57 (.32)# -.47 (.40) .34 (.29) .21 (.40)

Hispanic -.59 (.62) -1.13 (.63)# .30 (.46) .22 (.56) -.99 (.42)* -1.16 (.56) .17 (.42) .22 (.48)

Constant .93 (2.20) -.67 (4.41) 3.29 (2.24) 2.58 (3.51) -2.87 (2.06) -5.28 (4.09) .99 (2.24) -.17 (3.53)


3.38, 5, 484**489

2.50, 16, 344**360

1.94, 5, 464#

4693.21, 16, 336***

3521.92, 5, 484#

489.90, 15, 325

340.91, 5, 464

4691.30, 16, 336

352

1 Equations include dummy variables for missing status on Household structure changes and Moves outside the county, Best age for marriage, and Best age forchildren.# p<.10 * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

Becoming a Good Citizen? The Long-Term Consequences … Shanahan... · social and economic...

Documents

Transcript of Becoming a Good Citizen? The Long-Term Consequences … Shanahan... · social and economic...